May 26, 1952

BASEBALL GAME BETWEEN MEMBERS AND PRESS GALLERY MAY 28

Daniel (Dan) McIvor

Liberal

Mr. Speaker, on a question of personal privilege: it has been said the light that shines farthest shines brightest at home. We have heard a good deal about taking care of the home front. On Wednesday of this week there is to be a big game when the press gallery expects to put it all over the house. The game is to be a benefit for the sake of the page boy who broke his leg on Thursday evening. The privilege is that those who do not attend the game can contribute. It would be worth any man's while also to see the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the mound doing his stuff, the Speaker swinging at it, and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) trying to stop everything.

CONSTITUENCY CHANGES IN MANITOBA

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My point of privilege is based on citation 198 of Beauchesne's third edition:

Scandalous charges or imputations directed against members of a select committee are equivalent to libellous charges brought against the house itself.

In Saturday's issue of the Winnipeg Free Press there appears a story with respect to constituency changes in Manitoba. I read this sentence:

In drawing the redistribution map the Manitoba chairman said he and his fellow members had worked "on a scientific basis".

The chairman referred to is the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau). My point of privilege is that as one of the alleged fellow members of that committee I had nothing whatever to do with the drawing of the map. It was presented to the committee by the chairman. The same newspaper publishes two maps, one of the province as a whole, one of the city of Winnipeg, and says that they are the proposals of the provincial subcommittee.

As a member of that subcommittee I protest against this affront. They are only the proposals of the chairman himself.

Mr J. A. Ross (Souris): Mr. Speaker, on a matter of personal privilege, I wish also to refer to these constituency changes in Manitoba, without repeating what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said. He read the sentence which says that in drawing the redistribution map the Manitoba chairman said he and his fellow members had worked "on a scientific basis". I was a member of that subcommittee for Manitoba. The article also points out that this map is the proposal of the provincial subcommittee on federal redistribution. My matter of privilege is this. At our second subcommittee meeting we were handed a map by the chairman. There were only three of us present, the chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself. We were told that this map was final and would be presented to the committee. I had nothing whatever to do with the drawing of this map, and I do not think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had either. We are not parties to the proposal which will be presented to the general committee, so that this article from that point of view is absolutely untrue.

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT-DECISION OF COUNCIL

Liberal

Mr. Speaker, several days ago, questions were asked about the recent meetings of the international wheat council held in London. The eighth session of the council, which was opened on April 17 to consider an extension of the international wheat agreement, adjourned on May 9.

At the conclusion of the meetings, a short statement was issued by the chairman of the council summarizing the proceedings which should, I think, be placed on the record. I quote:

The council has carried out a review of the provisions of the agreement and has decided that certain changes in the agreement would be desirable.

Wheat-International Agreement

On the major question of price, the council concluded that fuller examination was required of some of the factors affecting the maximum and minimum prices to be incorporated in an extended agreement. The council wished to examine further, among other things, whether at stated intervals there should be an automatic variation of maximum and minimum prices based on some index which would reflect changes in the general price level.

The council decided to set up a continuing committee to investigate this question of flexibility and other matters which require to be further explored beiore the council can reach conclusions upon them. This committee will report to the next regular bi-annual session of the council which will begin on the 1st July next.

Under a provision of the present agreement, the council is under obligation to communicate to the exporting and importing countries, not later than the 31st July, 1952, its recommendations regarding the extension of the agreement beyond the 31st July, 1953, when the present agreement expires. It will therefore be for the council during its regular session in July to make recommendations on this subject. These are expected to be of an interim character and the council's detailed recommendations on amendments to the agreement, including those on maximum and minimum prices, will be for decision when the council resumes its eighth session late in 1952.

That is the end of the official statement by the council. May I add a word or two about the attitude taken by Canada at the meetings:

The Canadian delegation went to London prepared to negotiate a renewal of the agreement. For that purpose, the government appointed five advisers from the principal producer organizations in the prairie provinces to be available for consultations on the spot.

With the unanimous agreement of all the advisers, the Canadian delegation took the position that a substantial increase in prices was justified in a renewed agreement and made proposals along that line. The United States and Australia, the two other principal exporters, also put forward proposals for a substantially higher range of prices.

It soon appeared that there was a wide gap between the respective views of the exporting countries, on the one hand, and those of the importing countries, on the other hand, as to the level of the price range for a renewed agreement. This disparity in views was not altogether surprising considering that a renewed agreement would not come into effect until August, 1953, some fifteen months hence.

At the meeting just concluded, no country-indicated that it was not prepared to continue the agreement. It was agreed, as the official statement indicates, that full-scale negotiations should be resumed at a later date, towards the end of the present calendar year, when all parties will have a clearer impression of the conditions which will prevail at the time that a renewed agreement would come into operation.

May I say in conclusion that the government is particularly grateful for the assistance

given by the advisers from the farm organizations who, I am glad to say, gave complete support at all times to the views and proposals put forward by the Canadian delegation at the conference.

USE OF CANADIAN TROOPS AT KOJE ISLAND PRISONER-OF-WAR CAMP

Lester Bowles Pearson
(Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement in regard to reports that Canadian troops have been moved to Koje island, in Korea, to participate in the guarding of communist prisoners of war on that island.

On the afternoon of Thursday, May 22, the chief of the general staff received a telegram from the officer commanding, 25th Canadian infantry brigade, Korea, to the effect that he had received an order from the first (commonwealth) division issued in accordance with a request from the United Nations command to post a company from the brigade to guard duty at the prisoner-of-war camp on Koje island, and that he was accordingly assigning a company from the Royal Canadian Regiment for this duty.

On receipt of this message an inquiry regarding the order was immediately made in Washington. The inquiry confirmed that the order had been given, and that orders had also been given for the posting of units from certain other national forces under the United Nations command to similar duty. It also appeared that the movement of the Canadian troops in question was under way.

The government feels that it is essential that the Canadian policy in respect of the breaking up of the Canadian brigade for miscellaneous duties in Korea should be made clear. A note has accordingly been presented to the state department in Washington.

The following is the text of this note:

The Canadian government recognizes the importance of re-establishing and maintaining effective control over communist prisoners of war captured in Korean operations. The Canadian government also recognizes that custody of prisoners of war is a military responsibility which should be performed in accordance with military requirements.

It has, however, been a long established policy of the Canadian government that Canadian forces dispatched abroad for military operations should remain under Canadian command and control and that, except in the event of a military emergency which does not permit of time for consultation, no part of these forces should be detached therefrom except after consultation and with the agreement of the Canadian government.

The Canadian government therefore views with concern the dispatch of a company of the 25th infantry brigade to Koje island without prior consultation with the Canadian government, and hopes that it may be possible to re-unite this

company with the rest of the Canadian brigade as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the Canadian forces concerned will, of course, carry out loyally the orders of the unified command with respect to participation in guarding prisoners of war on Koje island. The Canadian government also wishes to be reassured that, if it is proposed in the future to detach any Canadian forces from Canadian command and control for military or other duties, this will be done only after consultation and with the consent of the Canadian government, except in the event of a military emergency which does not permit of time for such consultation.

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

May I ask a question arising out of the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs? In view of the part Canadians are playing in connection with the custody of prisoners of war, whether for a temporary or a prolonged period, will Canada have a voice in other matters with reference to prisoners of war, particularly in relation to the truce talks?

Lester Bowles Pearson
(Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

I do not wish at this time to add anything to the note I have just read. However, in regard to consultation, I should point out that there are regular meetings in Washington in which Canadian representatives, as well as the representatives of other countries with forces in Korea, participate. In those meetings we are kept generally informed as to the progress or lack of progress of the truce and other negotiations in Korea; and included in those negotiations of course is the question of prisoners of war.